"Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard [gun violence] the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing. This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution." -- The Economist
A Flat No
A shift to Rand Paul's 14.5% flat income tax would result in a reduction in tax bills for many people, especially since he would repeal the payroll tax. But the 14.5 percent VAT that he also wants would ultimately be paid by consumers in the form of higher prices, hitting the poor and working class the hardest. Taken together, his proposals are a double whammy to progressive taxation, and another potential gift from the GOP to the rich.
Instant Runoff #2763
It looks like some legitimate candidates -- Kasich, Fiorina -- will be excluded from the Republican primary debates because, this early, their polling numbers are low, while bozos, notably Trump, will be let on the bus. It would be in the interest of both the party and the country to try to fix this. One way might be to treat the debates as a kind of instant runoff. Let all the announced candidates participate in the first debate, then drop the lowest polling one or two wannabes afterward. Continue this process until the number is down to a manageable five or six candidates. Someone like Kasich might well survive to the end if he could get a hearing at the beginning. And the party wouldn't be stuck until the end of the process with at least some of the crazies.
Bikeshare should help get people out of their cars.
Bike riding supporters might want to reserve next Tuesday for a visit to Santa Monica's City Hall. The city council will be considering how to proceed with the bikeshare program. As the Santa Monica Daily Press reports, the “bikeshare will allow riders to check out one of the system’s 500 bikes from one of 75 locations in the city and drop it off at another.”
As proposed, the pricing for the system does not seem to be designed to maximize bike use, presumably the intended goal. “For an hour of riding, a tourist or an infrequent user will pay $6....More frequent riders can pay $20 per month for 30 minutes of daily riding time or $25 per month for an hour of daily riding. A basic annual pass — which gives users 30 minutes of usage 365 days of the year — will run $119 and an extended pass, which bumps that ride time to an hour, would cost $149.” This seems like an extension of the metering model used for parking, which runs contrary to the goal of maximizing use.
Why have time limits on use at all? If we really want locals and visitors to use bikes as transportation, it would make more sense to allow people to ride as much as they want. Thus, a user could, for example, ride to work, ride to and from lunch, stop at the library, pick up some groceries, stop for dinner, go the movies, meet for a drink, and go home. System bikes would be required to be returned to stations when not being ridden, thus freeing them up for other users.
“For Santa Monica residents, the basic annual pass will cost only $79 and the extended $99. Santa Monica College students are offered the greatest discount: $47 for six months of 60 minute daily riding.The $6 an hour casual fee simply buys 60 minutes of ride time that never expires. For monthly and annual passes, however, daily minutes do not roll over.”
Why limit the discount to Santa Monica residents? There are many thousands of non-Santa Monica westsiders who will be within walking distance of stations and should be encouraged to take bikes when going to Bergamot Station, Third Street, the beach or the pier. Also, don’t we want to encourage as many of the people who live elsewhere but work in Santa Monica to use bikes? The same discount should apply to employees as to residents.
“One of the things that city officials loved about the operator they selected, CycleHop, is that their technology allows bikes to be returned to locations other than the 75 stations throughout the city. If a bike is returned to a regular bike rack — even if it’s not an official station — within the Santa Monica-area, riders will only pay an additional $2. If a rider hops on that bike, which is not connected to an official Breeze rack, and returns it to a Breeze station, she’ll get a $1 credit for bikeshare usage. If a bike is locked up outside of the Santa Monica-area, the rider will pay a $20 fee. If a bike is returned to a generic bike rack within 100 feet of a hub that is full, the rider won’t be charged $2.”
This is all well and good, but it raises another question. Technology has advanced since the first bikeshare programs were installed in other cities. One change is that there is no longer a justification for a capital-intensive investment in stations. Bikes can be fitted easily with wireless devices that keep track of bikes wherever they are and allow them to be locked and unlocked by a downloadable app that will also keep track of payments. Users would be able to see the location of the nearest available bike. Such a system might make it possible to eliminate passes altogether, replacing them with incremental micro-charges, either capped or greatly reduced by frequent use. Being a laggard should be made to work to Santa Monica’s advantage.
Parenthetically, technology is also available to make the bikes cease to function if they are removed from the city, further lessening the need for expensive stations.
Additionally, it would make sense to explore whether there is a need for a system that would allow employees to pay an extra fee to take bikes home. This might make particular sense for SMC and private school students who live in nearby cities. This would increase the number of bikes available during working (and school) hours and encourage employees (and students) to use bikes on their off days when they return to shop, eat, go to the movies, Pier concerts, the beach, etc. Even if it cost double or triple the standard annual rate (see, next paragraph), it still might be worth it to people who do not want to purchase, maintain and repair a bike of their own.
So, assuming the bike stations are here to stay, here’s a proposal:
$6/day available to anyone for an unlimited number of trips and no limit on time.
$15/month available to anyone for an unlimited number of daily trips and no limit on time. This would encourage tourists staying three days or longer to pay the fee to have use of bikes throughout their stay.
$60/annual pass available to residents and employees for an unlimited number of daily trips and no limit on time. A student discount should be considered for the annual fee.
The rest of the story: Santa Monica bikeshare still on schedule; rates proposed by David Mark Simpson (Santa Monica Daily Press).
Hillary Clnton's Bloviation Seminar
In her official presidential campaign announcement speech, Hillary Clinton said she would reform the tax code, increase public investment in research, help communities transitioning to cleaner energy sources, establish an infrastructure bank, make preschool and child care universally available, increase college affordability, expand leave time for illness and family needs, raise the minimum wage, ban discrimination against gay people, reform campaign finance, and create automatic voter registration. It is impolite to point out that every one of these initiatives is the purview of the federal legislature (or in a few cases, the states) and that the Clinton campaign is pursuing a narrow strategy of targeting only a handful of contested states, meaning that her campaign will almost certainly result in fewer Democrats in Congress? And that about the things that are the purview of the executive, such as military adventurism, the security state, international trade, we are hearing nothing?
The word for the day: "shivaree"
1. a mock serenade with kettles, pans, horns, and other noisemakers given for a newly married couple; charivari.
2. an elaborate, noisy celebration.
As, in, "When Bernie Sanders is elected, there will be a shivaree in this nation such as never heard before."
2. an elaborate, noisy celebration.
As, in, "When Bernie Sanders is elected, there will be a shivaree in this nation such as never heard before."
New Yorkers:
Freshman Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., had been publicly opposing TPP, but in an about-face over the weekend, she said she’d finally been persuaded by the president’s case. She told the AP that "too often, Washington politics muddies arguments about what’s really best for the middle class." You can reach her at https://kathleenrice.house.gov/contact/ if you'd like to change her mind.
WMDs Redux
US intelligence now has “high confidence” that 100-150 have been killed in Syria so far by chemical weapons (aka WMDs), thus crossing POTUS' "line in the sand." 93,000 have been killed by other means in the course of the civil war. Surely, it's only coincidental that this finding follows on the heels of Hezbollah's arrival on the scene last week. Welcome to our latest war of choice.
Will the Democrats choose the only candidate who can lose to Donald Trump?
As Hillary Clinton continues to slide, the Democrats will realize they've walked themselves into a corner. Will they try an end run around the primaries by attempting to hijack the convention for, say, Joe Biden? Or accept that they have a choice between Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, the latter of whom will have to be repackaged as the lesser-of-two-goods to make him palatable to the powers that be?
From the Won't-Be-Fooled-Again Desk:
It's outrageous that America is the only developed country that doesn't provide paid family leave. If you agree join Hillary's campaign today! -- Daily KosReally? That's the criterion we're supposed to use to choose the next president?
How about out-of-control military spending? Is that outrageous? What's she going to do about that?Banks too big to fail? Pretty outrageous, you'd think. Will Goldman Sachs let her do anything about them?
Economic injustice? Outrageous. She's a big populist now; what's her plan?
Surveillance State abuses: Outrageous. If she has a solution, it's a secret.
Her actions at State that helped to create outrageous messes in Afghanistan, Honduras and Libya. What will she do about them?
The chaos in Syria and Iraq: Outrageous. Does she have a fix?
More outrageous, even, than that America is the only developed country that doesn't provide paid family leave, outrageous as that is.
Tomas van Houtryve's drone's-eye view of America reveals the changing nature of war, privacy, and government transparen
"When a drone looks at a thing, that thing has a way of looking like a target. People become silhouettes at a shooting range. Buildings look vulnerable, their roofs helplessly exposed and defenseless. Most colors disappear, and the remaining blacks, whites and greys evacuate the scene of all human meaning. What we see becomes data: body counts, damage reports, strategic value.
"In these photos, shot as part of an ongoing series, Belgian photographer Tomas van Houtryve looks at America through the eyes of a drone, a small quadcopter he bought online and equipped with a high-resolution camera. “A drone seems particularly appropriate because it’s increasingly how America views the rest of the world,” he says. “I wanted to turn things around. What do we look like from a drone’s-eye view? Suspicious? Prosperous? Free and happy?” Every age brings with it new technology for looking at the world. Van Houtryve has embraced the technology of ours."
Drone Country: See America From Above by Lev Grossman (Time)
"In these photos, shot as part of an ongoing series, Belgian photographer Tomas van Houtryve looks at America through the eyes of a drone, a small quadcopter he bought online and equipped with a high-resolution camera. “A drone seems particularly appropriate because it’s increasingly how America views the rest of the world,” he says. “I wanted to turn things around. What do we look like from a drone’s-eye view? Suspicious? Prosperous? Free and happy?” Every age brings with it new technology for looking at the world. Van Houtryve has embraced the technology of ours."
Drone Country: See America From Above by Lev Grossman (Time)
From the Government Transparency Desk: The dog that didn’t bark
"Watch the feet not the mouth." -- Gabree Family maxim
Despite paying lip service to open government, the administration of Barack Obama has been among the most secretive in our history.
In addition to prosecuting whistle-blowers in record numbers, the White House has dragged its heels over appointments to watchdog positions.
The rest of the story: Senate Panel Says Obama Administration Lacks Watchdogs by Brian Naylor (NPR)
Despite paying lip service to open government, the administration of Barack Obama has been among the most secretive in our history.
In addition to prosecuting whistle-blowers in record numbers, the White House has dragged its heels over appointments to watchdog positions.
Seven of the 33 inspector general posts in the Obama administration are being filled by temporary appointees, according to [a Senate] panel. Permanent IGs have been nominated for just three of the vacancies.Four of the agencies without nominees for permanent inspector generals -- the Department of the Interior, the Veterans Administration, the Export Import Bank and the Central Intelligence Agency -- are among those that need oversight the most.
The rest of the story: Senate Panel Says Obama Administration Lacks Watchdogs by Brian Naylor (NPR)
The Duopoly: They're not the same.
But does it matter?
Democratic Party apologists like to remind us that the two sides are not the same. And everyone to the left of Calvin "The business of America is business" Coolidge has a grand time pointing the finger at all the batty stuff Republicans think they have to say to appease their base.
But, meanwhile, the front runner on the other side is expressing perfectly reasonable but equally fanciful things about economic justice, peaceful foreign policy initiatives, and privacy protections.
This dance happens every four years.
But, at the end of the day, neither party has made a realistic effort to prevent the growth of the military-industrial complex and the rise of the security state, nor to arrest 40 years of disintegrating infrastructure and disappearing middle class.
On the contrary, they've walked hand in hand up Mt. Oligarchy.
You're standing on the street. A guy carrying a machete walks up to you and whacks off a hand and a foot. It's brutal and painful. A second guy approaches you with a chloroform-soaked rag and a scalpel. He knocks you out, carefully lowers you to the sidewalk, then slices off your other hand and foot. You don't feel a thing.
They're not the same, not by a long shot.
But, either way, you don't have hands and feet.
Democratic Party apologists like to remind us that the two sides are not the same. And everyone to the left of Calvin "The business of America is business" Coolidge has a grand time pointing the finger at all the batty stuff Republicans think they have to say to appease their base.
But, meanwhile, the front runner on the other side is expressing perfectly reasonable but equally fanciful things about economic justice, peaceful foreign policy initiatives, and privacy protections.
This dance happens every four years.
But, at the end of the day, neither party has made a realistic effort to prevent the growth of the military-industrial complex and the rise of the security state, nor to arrest 40 years of disintegrating infrastructure and disappearing middle class.
On the contrary, they've walked hand in hand up Mt. Oligarchy.
You're standing on the street. A guy carrying a machete walks up to you and whacks off a hand and a foot. It's brutal and painful. A second guy approaches you with a chloroform-soaked rag and a scalpel. He knocks you out, carefully lowers you to the sidewalk, then slices off your other hand and foot. You don't feel a thing.
They're not the same, not by a long shot.
But, either way, you don't have hands and feet.
I wonder
Do the oligarchs realize that, after the revolution, their militarized cops will be working for the people?
Bikes want to be free
Most bike systems in North America, charge a yearly fee with trips capped at 30 or 45 minutes before extra fees kick in. As things stand, Santa Monica's Bike Share program will do better, with a membership fee of $20 per month for 1 hour of free riding a day, allowing people to avoid the larger upfront cost of an annual fee; and subscribers who, say, only want to ride during warmer weather can also save some money. "Casual riders," which is probably a code word for tourists, will pay $2 per 20 minutes.
By comparison, however, in Philadelphia, the U.S. city with the most bicyclists per capita, the pricing system is more affordable. Philadelphia has a $15 per month fee that offers unlimited rides up to one hour per trip. Another option there provides a year of access to the system for a base fee of $10, with a per-trip charge of $4 for rides up to one hour long. Non-members (tourists) can pay the same $4 rate for rides, but for only up to one half hour, a little higher than here.
If you want people to ride, you have to make it as affordable as possible. At the $15/mo rate, it would cost a commuter about 70 cents a day, with no expenses for bike purchase, maintenance and repairs and no worries about theft. Let's see if we can lower the monthly fee in Santa Monica and have no limit on the number of trips per day, allowing people to, say, go to the market or other errands, then to the library, then to dinner, then to the movies, without the cost and hassle of metering.
Best of all would be free bikes, like Austin's Yellow Bike program. Possible models for a free system are "bike libaries" where bikes are issued to members for specific periods and fines accrue if they are overdue on return; bike share systems that take returable deposits instead of charging fees; and advertising-supported free bikes (a geographical system similar to that used to keep carts from leaving supermarket parking lots could be used to keep bikes from gong past municipal boundaries).
By comparison, however, in Philadelphia, the U.S. city with the most bicyclists per capita, the pricing system is more affordable. Philadelphia has a $15 per month fee that offers unlimited rides up to one hour per trip. Another option there provides a year of access to the system for a base fee of $10, with a per-trip charge of $4 for rides up to one hour long. Non-members (tourists) can pay the same $4 rate for rides, but for only up to one half hour, a little higher than here.
If you want people to ride, you have to make it as affordable as possible. At the $15/mo rate, it would cost a commuter about 70 cents a day, with no expenses for bike purchase, maintenance and repairs and no worries about theft. Let's see if we can lower the monthly fee in Santa Monica and have no limit on the number of trips per day, allowing people to, say, go to the market or other errands, then to the library, then to dinner, then to the movies, without the cost and hassle of metering.
Best of all would be free bikes, like Austin's Yellow Bike program. Possible models for a free system are "bike libaries" where bikes are issued to members for specific periods and fines accrue if they are overdue on return; bike share systems that take returable deposits instead of charging fees; and advertising-supported free bikes (a geographical system similar to that used to keep carts from leaving supermarket parking lots could be used to keep bikes from gong past municipal boundaries).
Terrorism has many faces:
"Eight abortion doctors have been murdered by 'pro-life' terrorists since 1993."
Striking a balance
A January 2015 survey conducted by agricultural economists at Oklahoma State found that 82% of Americans want their food labeled if it contains GMOs. The same survey found that 80% of Americans want their food labeled if it contains DNA.
Before getting too smug, let's stop and think about this. This is where majoritarianism leads when it is matched with a dumbed-down media and institutionalized ignorance fostered by an education system modeled on industry. De Tocqueville worried that egalitarian democracy harbored the seeds of its own destruction: "Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd," the resulting dysfunction revealed most nakedly in ballot initiatives.
Society needs to strike a balance between the romantic notion that everyone's ideas and beliefs are equally valid and respect for knowledge, expertise, and experience. The goal of egalitarianism should be to treat all people equally; the ambition of representative democracy should be to make the best practices and outcomes available to everyone.
Before getting too smug, let's stop and think about this. This is where majoritarianism leads when it is matched with a dumbed-down media and institutionalized ignorance fostered by an education system modeled on industry. De Tocqueville worried that egalitarian democracy harbored the seeds of its own destruction: "Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd," the resulting dysfunction revealed most nakedly in ballot initiatives.
Society needs to strike a balance between the romantic notion that everyone's ideas and beliefs are equally valid and respect for knowledge, expertise, and experience. The goal of egalitarianism should be to treat all people equally; the ambition of representative democracy should be to make the best practices and outcomes available to everyone.
Would Norman Thomas or Eugene Debs been more effective...
...if they'd run as Democrats?
Many of us who support him against Hillary Clinton now, warned before he declared that, by running as a Democrat instead of an independent, Bernie Sanders risks legitimizing the candidate from Goldman Sachs. Come September 2016, when most voters will be just starting to pay attention to the campaign, he will be either silenced or in the uncomfortable position of supporting a candidate for president he knows will pursue policies against which he has stood for his entire career. As Chris Hedges argues,
Many of us who support him against Hillary Clinton now, warned before he declared that, by running as a Democrat instead of an independent, Bernie Sanders risks legitimizing the candidate from Goldman Sachs. Come September 2016, when most voters will be just starting to pay attention to the campaign, he will be either silenced or in the uncomfortable position of supporting a candidate for president he knows will pursue policies against which he has stood for his entire career. As Chris Hedges argues,
If you want change you can believe in, destroy the system. And changing the system does not mean collaborating with it as Bernie Sanders is doing by playing by the cooked rules of the Democratic Party. Profound social and political transformation is acknowledged in legislatures and courts but never initiated there. Radical change always comes from below. As long as our gaze is turned upward to the powerful, as long as we invest hope in reforming the system of corporate power, we will remain enslaved. There may be good people within the system -- Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are examples -- but that is not the point. It is the system that is rotten. It must be replaced.The rest of the story: Make the Rich Panic by Chris Hedges (TruthDig).
Bernie's All In
Here's where you can sign up for Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign emails and, should you wish, to make a financial contribution to his effort: https://berniesanders.com/
Robert Borosage of The Campaign for America's Future offers a savvy assessment of the upsides of Sanders' run. "Sanders," he writes, "is in many ways the mirror image of Hillary Clinton, the favored candidate in the race. She has universal name recognition, unlimited
funds, and a campaign operation rife with experienced political pros. He is not widely known, has little money, and has never run a national campaign. But in a populist moment, he is the real deal – a full-throated, unabashed, independent, uncorrupted, straight-talking populist. And that is a big deal."
Borosage suggests supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren should be full bore for Sanders, on the premise that he could be Eugene McCarthy to her Robert Kennedy.
The rest of the story: The Sanders Challenge by Robert Borosage (The Campaign for America's Future).
Robert Borosage of The Campaign for America's Future offers a savvy assessment of the upsides of Sanders' run. "Sanders," he writes, "is in many ways the mirror image of Hillary Clinton, the favored candidate in the race. She has universal name recognition, unlimited
Borosage suggests supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren should be full bore for Sanders, on the premise that he could be Eugene McCarthy to her Robert Kennedy.
The rest of the story: The Sanders Challenge by Robert Borosage (The Campaign for America's Future).
Security check
So.
Logan Airport last night.
TSA.
My hat on. My jacket on. My shoes on. Computer in my bag.
Took off my belt buckle, but left on a welded steel neck piece.
"Empty your pockets. No bottles."
That was it.
Could it be that it has been 13 1/2 years of bullshit?
The story is not THAT citizens are in the streets. The question that needs to be addressed is WHY.
I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. -- Rev. Martin Luther KingThe mainstream media is shocked -- shocked! -- by the damage caused by the protestors in Baltimore, but the real story is the grinding poverty and neglect wrought by capital and the powerlessness of citizens living under the thumb of oligarchy.
"Baltimore," Shawn Gude writes, "is like so many other cities with their own Freddie Grays: a place in which private capital has left enormous sections of the city to rot, where a chasm separates the life chances of black and white residents — and where cops brutally patrol a 'disposable' population."
 |
| (Photo: The Baltimore Sun) |
Is this the beginning of the American Spring?
The rest of the story: Why Baltimore Rebelled by Shawn Gude (Jacobin).
10,000 Strong Peacefully Protest In Downtown Baltimore, Media Only Reports The Violence & Arrest of Dozens by AJ Woodson (Black Westchester).
Eyewitnesses: The Baltimore Riots Didn't Start the Way You Think. Baltimore teachers and parents tell a different story from the one you've been reading in the media. By Sam Brodey and Jenna McLaughlin (Mother Jones)
Reading list: “A corrupt, unresponsive and plutocratic disaster”: How Mitch McConnell and the GOP remade Washington in their image. Now that the GOP's in control, Mitch McConnell is letting some things pass — and taking all the credit. By Elias Isquith (Salon).
Why So Many Americans Feel So Powerless by Robert Reich (robertreich.org).
American Political Passivity, Anti-Authoritarianism, and Building a Base by Bruce E. Levine (WarIsACrime).
Rise of the New Black Radicals by Chris Hedges (TruthDig).
Izzy Stone on Earth Day
Thanks to Naomi Klein for unearthing this:
I.F. Stone: “Con Games,” speech delivered at Sylvan Theater, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1970
In the ancient world, the Caesars did it with bread and circuses. And tonight, I’m afraid, is the first time that our Caesars have learned to do it with rock and roll, and idealism, and noninflammatory social issues. In some ways, I’m sorry to say, we here tonight are being conned. This has many of the aspects of a beautiful snow job. The country is slipping into a wider war in southeast Asia, and we’re talking about litterbugs. The secretary of defense, on Monday, made a speech to the Associated Press sabotaging the SALT talks, presenting a completely false picture of the world balance of power, ending what little hope we had of progress in those talks, preparing the way for a bigger, more expensive arms race at the expensive of mankind, and we’re talking as if we needed more wastebaskets.
The divisions of white and black in this country are getting to the point where they threaten our future, and we’re talking about pollution. And it’s not that pollution is not an important subject, but if the Nixon administration feels so deeply about it, why don’t they do something substantial about it?
One important thing about this town is that you can never take very seriously what the officials say. They’re the prisoners of a vast bureaucracy. Much of what they say is merely rationalization of their lack of momentum. But in particular, the president said, and I think quite rightfully and quite truthfully, that in the next ten years it’s now or never for the air we breathe and the water we drink. And then, after making that speech, he put in a budget in which 52 cents out of every general revenue dollar goes to the military, and barely four-tenths of one cent goes to air and water pollution. And that’s a real con game. And that’s a real snow job.
We are spending, on new weapons systems alone, more than ten times as much, in this coming fiscal year, in the Nixon budget, than we’re going to spend on air and water. We’re spending a billion dollars more a year on space than all our expenditure on natural resources. The priorities of this government are lunatic—absolutely lunatic. And we’re not going to save the air we breathe and the water we drink without very many fundamental changes in governmental policy and governmental structure.
Before I came down here tonight, I heard a TV announcer say with great satisfaction that he hadn’t heard a word said about Vietnam all day. Well, I’m going to say a word about Vietnam. We’re not going to be able to save our air and our water, and the resources of our country, for our children and our grandchildren, until we end the militarization of our society, until we bring to an end the effort of American imperialism to rule the world and to waste our resources and our honor and our kids on a futile and murderous and insane task.
The problem of pollution is not going to be solved in isolation. The basic and most important pollution problem that we have to deal with is to prevent the pollution of the atmosphere of free discussion by the Nixon-Agnew-Mitchell administration. A society can only progress and deal with its evils if it is prepared to allow the widest measure of free speech, including free speech for radicals who are completely opposed to the basis of that society. Any society allows you to agree with the government. A free society allows you to disagree fundamentally. And it takes a lot of disagreement, and a lot of hollering and a lot of demonstration, to shake any establishment out of its accustomed ways. And the main menace to the solution of these problems is an administration that thinks they will go away if they just put a few radicals in jail.
The problems are enormous. The source of pollution is man. And man’s technology. And the enormous institutions he has built up that make him a prisoner. And somehow we’ve got to shake loose. And the biggest menace—the institution that ties us down most—that wastes our substance—that threatens to waste more of our youth—is that great big, five-sided building across the Potomac—the Pentagon. They are preparing to do to us at home what they tried to do in Vietnam.
Only this week, General Wheeler, the retiring chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, gave an interview to U.S. News and World Report in which he said that criticism of the military was due to a Communist plot. This is an effort of the military to revive McCarthyism, to preserve its enormous power and privileges in our society. And until its power is broken, until the military is reduced sharply in size, we’re not going to be able to solve these problems.
You know, there is no use talking about Earth Day unless we are prepared to make these fundamental changes. Everybody’s talking about Earth Day, and it comes out of the mouths of so many hypocrites it turns your stomach. What kind of an Earth Day can we celebrate in a country that is spending so much of its money to destroy the Earth? How can we talk of reverence for life when we’re spending so much on our enemy, our genius, our money, and our youth on building up new means of destroying life?
What’s the use of talking about the pollution of air and water when we live under a precarious balance of terror which can, in an hour’s time, make the entire Northern Hemisphere of our planet unlivable? There’s no use talking about Earth Day until we begin to think like Earthmen. Not as Americans and Russians, not as blacks and whites, not as Jews and Arabs, but as fellow travelers on a tiny planet in an infinite universe. All that we can muster of kindness, of compassion, of patience, of thoughtfulness, is necessary if this tiny planet of ours is not to go down to destruction. Until we have a leadership willing to make the enormous changes—psychological, military, and bureaucratic—to end the existing world system, a system of hatred, of anarchy, of murder, of war and pollution, there is no use talking about buying more wastebaskets or spending a couple of hundred million dollars on the Missouri River. If we do not challenge these fundamental causes of peril, we will be conned by the establishment while basic decisions are being made over which we have very little control, though they endanger everything on which our future and the world’s depend.
More at The Website of I.F. Stone.
I.F. Stone: “Con Games,” speech delivered at Sylvan Theater, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1970
In the ancient world, the Caesars did it with bread and circuses. And tonight, I’m afraid, is the first time that our Caesars have learned to do it with rock and roll, and idealism, and noninflammatory social issues. In some ways, I’m sorry to say, we here tonight are being conned. This has many of the aspects of a beautiful snow job. The country is slipping into a wider war in southeast Asia, and we’re talking about litterbugs. The secretary of defense, on Monday, made a speech to the Associated Press sabotaging the SALT talks, presenting a completely false picture of the world balance of power, ending what little hope we had of progress in those talks, preparing the way for a bigger, more expensive arms race at the expensive of mankind, and we’re talking as if we needed more wastebaskets.
The divisions of white and black in this country are getting to the point where they threaten our future, and we’re talking about pollution. And it’s not that pollution is not an important subject, but if the Nixon administration feels so deeply about it, why don’t they do something substantial about it?
One important thing about this town is that you can never take very seriously what the officials say. They’re the prisoners of a vast bureaucracy. Much of what they say is merely rationalization of their lack of momentum. But in particular, the president said, and I think quite rightfully and quite truthfully, that in the next ten years it’s now or never for the air we breathe and the water we drink. And then, after making that speech, he put in a budget in which 52 cents out of every general revenue dollar goes to the military, and barely four-tenths of one cent goes to air and water pollution. And that’s a real con game. And that’s a real snow job.
We are spending, on new weapons systems alone, more than ten times as much, in this coming fiscal year, in the Nixon budget, than we’re going to spend on air and water. We’re spending a billion dollars more a year on space than all our expenditure on natural resources. The priorities of this government are lunatic—absolutely lunatic. And we’re not going to save the air we breathe and the water we drink without very many fundamental changes in governmental policy and governmental structure.
Before I came down here tonight, I heard a TV announcer say with great satisfaction that he hadn’t heard a word said about Vietnam all day. Well, I’m going to say a word about Vietnam. We’re not going to be able to save our air and our water, and the resources of our country, for our children and our grandchildren, until we end the militarization of our society, until we bring to an end the effort of American imperialism to rule the world and to waste our resources and our honor and our kids on a futile and murderous and insane task.
The problem of pollution is not going to be solved in isolation. The basic and most important pollution problem that we have to deal with is to prevent the pollution of the atmosphere of free discussion by the Nixon-Agnew-Mitchell administration. A society can only progress and deal with its evils if it is prepared to allow the widest measure of free speech, including free speech for radicals who are completely opposed to the basis of that society. Any society allows you to agree with the government. A free society allows you to disagree fundamentally. And it takes a lot of disagreement, and a lot of hollering and a lot of demonstration, to shake any establishment out of its accustomed ways. And the main menace to the solution of these problems is an administration that thinks they will go away if they just put a few radicals in jail.
The problems are enormous. The source of pollution is man. And man’s technology. And the enormous institutions he has built up that make him a prisoner. And somehow we’ve got to shake loose. And the biggest menace—the institution that ties us down most—that wastes our substance—that threatens to waste more of our youth—is that great big, five-sided building across the Potomac—the Pentagon. They are preparing to do to us at home what they tried to do in Vietnam.
Only this week, General Wheeler, the retiring chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, gave an interview to U.S. News and World Report in which he said that criticism of the military was due to a Communist plot. This is an effort of the military to revive McCarthyism, to preserve its enormous power and privileges in our society. And until its power is broken, until the military is reduced sharply in size, we’re not going to be able to solve these problems.
You know, there is no use talking about Earth Day unless we are prepared to make these fundamental changes. Everybody’s talking about Earth Day, and it comes out of the mouths of so many hypocrites it turns your stomach. What kind of an Earth Day can we celebrate in a country that is spending so much of its money to destroy the Earth? How can we talk of reverence for life when we’re spending so much on our enemy, our genius, our money, and our youth on building up new means of destroying life?
What’s the use of talking about the pollution of air and water when we live under a precarious balance of terror which can, in an hour’s time, make the entire Northern Hemisphere of our planet unlivable? There’s no use talking about Earth Day until we begin to think like Earthmen. Not as Americans and Russians, not as blacks and whites, not as Jews and Arabs, but as fellow travelers on a tiny planet in an infinite universe. All that we can muster of kindness, of compassion, of patience, of thoughtfulness, is necessary if this tiny planet of ours is not to go down to destruction. Until we have a leadership willing to make the enormous changes—psychological, military, and bureaucratic—to end the existing world system, a system of hatred, of anarchy, of murder, of war and pollution, there is no use talking about buying more wastebaskets or spending a couple of hundred million dollars on the Missouri River. If we do not challenge these fundamental causes of peril, we will be conned by the establishment while basic decisions are being made over which we have very little control, though they endanger everything on which our future and the world’s depend.
More at The Website of I.F. Stone.
Block the Kochs
When Dylan sang "Your old road is rapidly agin'/Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand/For the times they are a-changin'," he was sending out a warning to the establishment of the day, the old order, the holders of the reins of authority, the guardians of business-as-usual.
And the times changed all right, just not the way he predicted. Now, it is we the people who need to heed the warning. The counter-revolution is nearly over. The oligarchs' final victory is around the next turn the road. Despite the valiant resistance of individuals all over the planet, there are still too few willing to lend hand. Difficult as it will be, we must find the way to collective action.
"We must all hang together," Franklin said, "or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Poor us
 |
| A Japanese officer watches as a Landing Craft Air Cushion transports US Marines and sailors and soldiers from Japan during a joint military exercise in California in 2014 (Joe Klamar/AFP/Getty images) |
"In fact, this world of threats is an illusion. The United States has no potent enemies. We are not only safe, but safer than any big power has been in all of modern history.
"Geography is our greatest protector. Wide oceans separate us from potential aggressors. Our vast homeland is rich and productive. No other power on earth is blessed with this security.
"Our other asset is the weakness of potential rivals. It will be generations before China is able to pose a serious challenge to the United States — and there is little evidence it wishes to do so. Russia is weak and in deep economic trouble — not always a friendly neighbor but no threat to the United States. Heart-rending violence in the Middle East has no serious implication for American security. As for domestic terrorism, the risk for Americans is modest: You have more chance of being struck by lightning on your birthday than of dying in a terror attack."
The rest of the story:
The world of threats to the US is an illusion by Stephen Kinzer (Boston Globe)
They're baaaaack!
Having failed to inflict sufficient damage on Santa Monica's planning process last year with its ill-conceived but successful referendum to hogtie the development of the admirable Hines project (you can see the not-unexpectedly mediocre aftermath of that effort here), nimby-oid Residocracy is back with a
non-binding digital petition designed to short circuit the reasonable, common-sense updating of the city's zoning ordinance, recently advanced by the planning commission after many months of study and debate.
According to the Santa Monica Daily Press, "Residocracy is asking for a 25 percent reduction of all proposed heights and densities under the first and second tier development standards. They want an amendment to another planning document (The Land Use and Circulation Element or LUCE) that eliminates third tier developments. They’d like a second amendment to the LUCE that would eliminate all activity centers, which would allow larger scale development. And finally, they want an ordinance requiring that all development agreements be approved by Santa Monica voters."
This is not how representative democracy works. In fact, representative government was established precisely to prevent the highjacking of the political system by highly motivated minorities. Even the heart of Residocracy's complaint -- that the proposed ordinance and LUCE are complex 500 page documents that took seven years to put together -- points to the inadvisability of deciding complex issues by referendum. The other complaint -- that, despite extensive public input in Santa Monica decision-making, the outcomes seem predetermined by city staff -- has some merit, but the solution is to give elected representatives more sway over city employees (council members need their own staffs, for example, or, shy of that, there should be a full-time independent auditor with his or her own staff).
Residocracy presents itself as the voice of Santa Monica residents. but in actuality it is a single-issue interest group with a very specific and very negative agenda. Using intimidation, sloganeering, over-simplification and scare tactics. it attempts to bully its way to its desired outcomes (go to a public meeting where its members have been turned out in numbers and you'll think you're at a cage fight not a civic event). During the lead up to the Hines ballot initiative, out off curiosity I took a walk around town randomly asking people what they thought of the project. Although it is anecdotal not scientific, what I found is nonetheless instructive: of the people I spoke to who'd heard of Hines. not a one was opposed to it as approved and a number expressed the hope that it would be built.
Maybe this time the city council -- charged with looking out for the general welfare, after all, not the interests of one group, however clamorous -- will not let itself be bullied. And before you allow yourself to be bullied into endorsing Residocracy's abstinence appeal ("just say no" to all development it dislikes, whether useful, necessary, desirable or popular), consider this: what do you know about land use; tax law and revenue generation; infrastructure and utilities; zoning; federal and state regulations affecting development; the influence of local bylaws, ordinances and regulations on our environmental, economic and housing goals and whether such rules are prescriptive or proscriptive; the effects on traffic, air quality and other elements of urban life of concentrating development near transportation hubs; the mix and condition of the city's housing stock; public benefits that can be achieved from easements and development agreements; the possible differences, relationships and sound mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses; the need for public facilities; and how your concerns dovetail with others who have an equal claim on what happens here? That's what a city council is for.
By all means, participate! Go to community workshops, express yourself at planning commission and city council meetings, call and write your elected and appointed representatives. And when Residocracy turns up again, as they will, with a plebiscite on a complex development matter, don't play along. Just say no.
Follow: Santa Monica Mirror; Santa Monica Daily Press; City of Santa Monica.
 |
| 26th Street as it might have been |
According to the Santa Monica Daily Press, "Residocracy is asking for a 25 percent reduction of all proposed heights and densities under the first and second tier development standards. They want an amendment to another planning document (The Land Use and Circulation Element or LUCE) that eliminates third tier developments. They’d like a second amendment to the LUCE that would eliminate all activity centers, which would allow larger scale development. And finally, they want an ordinance requiring that all development agreements be approved by Santa Monica voters."
This is not how representative democracy works. In fact, representative government was established precisely to prevent the highjacking of the political system by highly motivated minorities. Even the heart of Residocracy's complaint -- that the proposed ordinance and LUCE are complex 500 page documents that took seven years to put together -- points to the inadvisability of deciding complex issues by referendum. The other complaint -- that, despite extensive public input in Santa Monica decision-making, the outcomes seem predetermined by city staff -- has some merit, but the solution is to give elected representatives more sway over city employees (council members need their own staffs, for example, or, shy of that, there should be a full-time independent auditor with his or her own staff).
Residocracy presents itself as the voice of Santa Monica residents. but in actuality it is a single-issue interest group with a very specific and very negative agenda. Using intimidation, sloganeering, over-simplification and scare tactics. it attempts to bully its way to its desired outcomes (go to a public meeting where its members have been turned out in numbers and you'll think you're at a cage fight not a civic event). During the lead up to the Hines ballot initiative, out off curiosity I took a walk around town randomly asking people what they thought of the project. Although it is anecdotal not scientific, what I found is nonetheless instructive: of the people I spoke to who'd heard of Hines. not a one was opposed to it as approved and a number expressed the hope that it would be built.
Maybe this time the city council -- charged with looking out for the general welfare, after all, not the interests of one group, however clamorous -- will not let itself be bullied. And before you allow yourself to be bullied into endorsing Residocracy's abstinence appeal ("just say no" to all development it dislikes, whether useful, necessary, desirable or popular), consider this: what do you know about land use; tax law and revenue generation; infrastructure and utilities; zoning; federal and state regulations affecting development; the influence of local bylaws, ordinances and regulations on our environmental, economic and housing goals and whether such rules are prescriptive or proscriptive; the effects on traffic, air quality and other elements of urban life of concentrating development near transportation hubs; the mix and condition of the city's housing stock; public benefits that can be achieved from easements and development agreements; the possible differences, relationships and sound mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses; the need for public facilities; and how your concerns dovetail with others who have an equal claim on what happens here? That's what a city council is for.
By all means, participate! Go to community workshops, express yourself at planning commission and city council meetings, call and write your elected and appointed representatives. And when Residocracy turns up again, as they will, with a plebiscite on a complex development matter, don't play along. Just say no.
Follow: Santa Monica Mirror; Santa Monica Daily Press; City of Santa Monica.
Background: How the 2012 Presidential Election Demonstrated Why the Electoral College Must Be Reformed...
...and One Way It Can Be Done
"The United States has reached an unprecedented level of inequality in presidential elections. In 2012, only 10 states drew the major party presidential candidates for post-convention campaign events, and those same 10 states attracted 99.6% of all general election television advertising spending by the campaigns and their allies. The remaining 41 spectator states (counting the District of Columbia) included all 38 states that had been similarly overlooked in 2008. This article details these inequalities and their roots in state statutes allocating electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. It argues that states should end this inequality by enacting the National Popular Vote interstate compact, which would ensure that it is the popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that determines who becomes the president." -- Robert Richie and Andrea Levien of FairVote.
The rest of the story: The Contemporary Presidency - How the 2012 Presidential Election Has Strengthened the Movement for the National Popular Vote Plan by Robert Richie and Andrea Levien (FairVote).
"The United States has reached an unprecedented level of inequality in presidential elections. In 2012, only 10 states drew the major party presidential candidates for post-convention campaign events, and those same 10 states attracted 99.6% of all general election television advertising spending by the campaigns and their allies. The remaining 41 spectator states (counting the District of Columbia) included all 38 states that had been similarly overlooked in 2008. This article details these inequalities and their roots in state statutes allocating electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. It argues that states should end this inequality by enacting the National Popular Vote interstate compact, which would ensure that it is the popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that determines who becomes the president." -- Robert Richie and Andrea Levien of FairVote.
The rest of the story: The Contemporary Presidency - How the 2012 Presidential Election Has Strengthened the Movement for the National Popular Vote Plan by Robert Richie and Andrea Levien (FairVote).
Leadership
Bill Clinton is angling to seat a surrogate in the Oval Office. George Bush I is jumping out of airplanes. George Bush II is painting pictures of his feet. And Jimmy Carter?
"I have been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be 'subservient' to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views." -- Jimmy Carter, president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.
Fascinating long read
The British security service, MI5, its war on communism, and its file on Eric Hobsbawm, 'one of the pre-eminent British historians of the 20th century.'
Stuck on the Flypaper by Frances Stonor Saunders (London Review of Books).
How does our economic system work?
George Carlin is always worth watching:
"... From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. ... But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction - indeed, in some sense was the destruction - of a hierarchical society. ... the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would... already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. ... But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. ... Ignorance is Strength ..." -- George Orwell, ("1984")
“No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of law, the great majority are so by force of poverty; they are still chained to a place, to an occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred, by the accident of birth both from the enjoyments, and from the mental and moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion and independently of desert. That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against which mankind have hitherto struggled, the poor are not wrong in believing. Is it a necessary evil? They are told so by, those who do not feel it---by those who have gained the prizes in the lottery of life. But it was also said that slavery, that despotism, that all the privileges of oligarchy, were necessary.” ― John Stuart Mill, On Socialism
"... From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. ... But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction - indeed, in some sense was the destruction - of a hierarchical society. ... the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would... already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. ... But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. ... Ignorance is Strength ..." -- George Orwell, ("1984")
“No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of law, the great majority are so by force of poverty; they are still chained to a place, to an occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred, by the accident of birth both from the enjoyments, and from the mental and moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion and independently of desert. That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against which mankind have hitherto struggled, the poor are not wrong in believing. Is it a necessary evil? They are told so by, those who do not feel it---by those who have gained the prizes in the lottery of life. But it was also said that slavery, that despotism, that all the privileges of oligarchy, were necessary.” ― John Stuart Mill, On Socialism
No-Good Will Come of This Campaign
Ted Cruz is a hack, an idiot, a hypocrite and a con man, and, as such, he embodies everything that is wrong with our politics.
But headlines like "Ted Cruz doesn’t have a prayer: Why the Texas senator will never sniff the White House" sound too much like whistling past the graveyard.
But headlines like "Ted Cruz doesn’t have a prayer: Why the Texas senator will never sniff the White House" sound too much like whistling past the graveyard.
Elizabeth Warren for Majority Leader
"Her lifetime of fighting for the little guy against Wall Street power … shows she can think big, wage tough fights against powerful interests, and win key votes in the Senate,” the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said in a statement expressing support for Warren to replace Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who announced that he won't seek reelection in 2016.
Progressives push for Warren as next Senate Democratic leader by Jonathan Easley (The Hill).
Frank Little: The Hobo Agitator (PBS)
The summer of 1917: the war of the Copper Kings was winding down, a highly charged time for Butte, which had a socialist mayor and no unions. This extremely well done profile of Frank Little, the hobo agitator, brings that summer to life, when vigilantes roamed freely though the city and dominated the mines. Little was one of the major IWW leaders of the time; he was lynched at Butte on August 1 1917. The doc also provides background on Butte and copper, the emergence of militant unionism, and some of the radicalism of the times. Don't pass this up.
Rail: Fail
One measure of American political dysfunction is the not-so-slow collapse of infrastructure during the last four decades, including passenger rail service, an area where the U.S. is dead last versus all its economic rivals.
"In the 1960, the United States had an extensive network of passenger rail trains. All the major cities in the Midwest and South were linked by regular train service. You could get service on smaller routes, like the one from Boise, Idaho, to Portland, Oregon, three times a day. Then a lot of lines got shut down in the late 1960s and 1970s, as this animation shows."
Source: Watch American passenger rail shrivel up and die in this animated map by Timothy B. Lee (Vox).
Resource: National Association of Railroad Passengers
"In the 1960, the United States had an extensive network of passenger rail trains. All the major cities in the Midwest and South were linked by regular train service. You could get service on smaller routes, like the one from Boise, Idaho, to Portland, Oregon, three times a day. Then a lot of lines got shut down in the late 1960s and 1970s, as this animation shows."
 |
| (Maps from the National Association of Railway Passengers and Malcolm Kenton. Animation by Joss Fong) |
Source: Watch American passenger rail shrivel up and die in this animated map by Timothy B. Lee (Vox).
Resource: National Association of Railroad Passengers
We reached a new level of political dysfunction this week.
The Republican-dominated House of Representatives passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their fields from providing advice -- directly or indirectly -- to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Naturally, this is being done in the name of “transparency.”
The appearance of corruption is as corrosive to public trust as actual corruption.
Or, what is there about a seat on the Santa Monica City Council that makes it worth $173,762.98 to Sue Himmelrich?
Corollary: Is it time for local campaign finance reform?
The rest of the story: More than $1 million spent on council race (Santa Monica Daily Press).
The End Is Nigh
The idea that we face a number of global risks threatening the very basis of our civilization at the beginning of the 21st century is well accepted in the scientific community, and is studied at a number of leading universities. But there is still no coordinated approach to address this group of risks and turn them into opportunities. The 12 global risks that threaten human civilization are:
Current risks
1. Extreme Climate Change
2. Nuclear War
3. Ecological Catastrophe
4. Global Pandemic
5. Global System Collapse
Exogenic risks
6. Major Asteroid Impact
7. Supervolcano
Emerging risks
8. Synthetic Biology
9. Nanotechnology
10. Artificial Intelligence
11. Uncertain Risks
Global policy risk
12. Future Bad Global Governance
Global Challenges Foundation
Current risks
1. Extreme Climate Change
2. Nuclear War
3. Ecological Catastrophe
4. Global Pandemic
5. Global System Collapse
Exogenic risks
6. Major Asteroid Impact
7. Supervolcano
Emerging risks
8. Synthetic Biology
9. Nanotechnology
10. Artificial Intelligence
11. Uncertain Risks
Global policy risk
12. Future Bad Global Governance
Global Challenges Foundation
Draft of an Eight-Point Platform for Making a Major Breakthrough on 'Left Unity'
By Carl Davidson, Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Pat Fry
Introduction: The following eight-point proposal is designed to initiate both a discussion and a process. The points can be further refined, and subtracted from or added to. Given the scope of the challenges ahead of us, there is a certain degree of urgency, but it is also wise to take to time to start off on a sound footing, uniting all who can be united. The main things it wants to bring into being at all levels—local, regional, national or in sectors—are common projects.
We know that many of us are already involved in a wide variety of projects. But is there any compelling reason we have to do this separately, behaving like a wheelbarrow full of frogs trying to win a common goal? A good case in point is Chuy Garcia’s mayoral campaign in Chicago. Wouldn’t this campaign be better served if we worked together in a planned way to draw in and skillfully deploy even more forces? Or take the labor-community alliance projects building solidarity for labor strikes or the campaign for an increase in the minimum wage? We can all make a long list here, but the core idea should be apparent, at least for starters, and we invite your responses and queries.
1. We need something new The left is not likely to find critical mass through mergers of existing groups, although any such events would be positive. But a new formation to which all would be equally cooperative in a larger project -- call it a Left Front or Left Alliance -- would have a greater impact. Groups participating in it could retain whatever degree of autonomy they desire, such as keeping their own newspapers, national committees, local clubs meeting separately, and so on. Every group involved can exercise its own independence and initiative, to the degree it finds necessary. But all would be striving in common to help the overall project succeed. While the US situation is not strictly comparable, the Front de Gauche in France, Die Linke in Germany, PODEMOS in Spain and Syriza in Greece serve as examples.
2. We need a ‘project based’ common front. At the grassroots level, it would be comprised of joint projects—electoral, union organizing, campaigns against the far right, for a living wage or reducing student debt, for opposing war, racism, sexism and police violence, and many others. The existing left groups in a factory, a neighborhood, a city or a campus, would be encouraged to advance the joint projects.
3. We need a ‘critical mass’ at the core that is both young, working class and diverse. While people from all demographics are welcome, the initial core has to be largely drawn from the Millennials, those born after 1980 or so. And the core also has to be a rainbow of nationalities with gender equity, and well-connected to union and working class insurgencies. If the initial core at the beginning is too ‘white’ or too ‘1968ers’, it will not be a pole with the best attractive power for a growing new generation of socialist and radical minded activists.
4. We need a common aspiration for socialism. That’s what makes us a ‘Left Front or Left Alliance’ rather than a broader popular front or people’s coalition. We are strongly supportive of these wider coalitions and building the left is not done in isolation from them. But we also see the wisdom in the concept: the stronger the core, the broader the front. Moreover we do not require a unified definition on what socialism is; only that a larger socialist pole makes for an even wider, deeper and more sustainable common front of struggle.
5. We do not need full agreement on strategy. A few key concepts—the centrality of fighting white supremacy, the intersection of race, class and gender, the alliance and merger of the overall workers movement and the movements of the communities of the oppressed—will do. We can also agree on cross-class alliances focused on critical targets: new wars, the far right and the austerity schemes imposed by finance capital. Additional elements, perspectives, nuances and ‘shades of difference’ can be debated, discussed and adjusted in the context of ongoing struggle.
6. We need a flexible but limited approach to elections. We can affirm that supporting our own or other candidates is a matter of tactics to be debated case-by-case, and not a matter of ‘principle’ that would exclude ever voting for any particular Democrat, Green or Socialist. We see the importance for social movements to have an electoral arm that presses and fights for their agenda within government bodies.
7. We need to be well embedded in grassroots organizations. Especially important are the organizations of the working class and in the communities of the oppressed—unions and worker centers, civil rights and women’s rights, youth and students, peace and justice, churches and communities of faith, cooperatives and other groups tied to the solidarity economy, and other community-based NGOs and nonprofits.
8. We need to be internationalists. But we do not have to require support for any particular countries or bloc of countries and national liberation movements, past or present. But we do oppose the wars of aggression, occupations and other illicit interventions of ‘our own’ ruling class, along with the hegemonism, ‘superpower mentality’ and Great Power chauvinism it promotes. That is the best way we can promote world peace and practice solidarity and assistance to forces beyond our borders.
Posted originally on February 3, 2015.
[Carl Davidson and Pat Fry are national co-chairs of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. Bill Fletcher Jr. is a member of several socialist organizations and author of ‘They're Bankrupting Us! And 20 Other Myths about Unions.’ Comments can be sent to carld717@gmail.com ]
Must Read
"For example, the idea that wealth is privately produced and then appropriated by a quasi-illegitimate state, through taxation, is easy to succumb to if one has not been exposed first to Marx’s poignant argument that precisely the opposite applies: wealth is collectively produced and then privately appropriated through social relations of production and property rights that rely, for their reproduction, almost exclusively on false consciousness."
Before he entered politics, Yanis Varoufakis, the iconoclastic Greek finance minister at the centre of the latest eurozone standoff, wrote this searing account of European capitalism and how the left can learn from Marx’s mistakes: How I became an erratic Marxist by Yanis Varoufakis (Guardian).
Turf War
Former mayor and assembly-speaker Antonio Villaraigosa will likely announce his candidacy for U.S. Senate this coming week. If Tony runs, he'll be taking on the Democratic front runner, California Attorney General Kamala Harris. Harris is coffee-colored and from the Bay Area and Villaraigosa is an Elay homeboy with an Hispanic name, so the media have made the sensible decision to present the competition in a way that's simple and easy-to-understand: black against Latino, SanFran vs SoCal. The alternative would be to waste endless column inches and seconds of airtime evaluating the candidates' records and explaining their policy differences, and no one wants that. The only snag in the epic ethnic showdown scenario is that the candidates don't fit the required templates -- Harris is the offspring of an Indian physician mother and Jamaican economist father and Villaraigosa was still struggling with español as recently as his run for mayor -- and may balk at being cast as ethnic stereotypes.
Oh, well. It's not their choice to make.
Oh, well. It's not their choice to make.
Civilization does not depend on the automobile
Probably our closest cohort among nations, Germany has a lot to teach us: "Compared to Americans, Germans own fewer cars, drive them shorter distances and less frequently, and walk and cycle and ride transit more often. They have slimmer waistlines to show for their active transport habits and suffer fewer traffic deaths whether in a car or not. They spend less household income on getting around even as they pay much more in driving costs. They use less energy per person on ground transport, resulting in lower carbon emissions."
All the Ways Germany Is Less Car-Reliant Than the U.S., in 1 Chart: There are rather a lot of ways, as it turns out. (The Atlantic/CityLab)
(Source: The Atlantic)
The rest of the story:All the Ways Germany Is Less Car-Reliant Than the U.S., in 1 Chart: There are rather a lot of ways, as it turns out. (The Atlantic/CityLab)
Alternative and shared-use bridges
While we await the opportunity to cap the I-10 and reunite Santa Monica's neighborhoods, we can do a lot for the city's walking and biking populations by building three or four pedestrian/bike bridges. The I-10 overpasses at 4th St. and at Lincoln Blvd., also, are in especially desperate need of makeovers to make them safer and more attractive to walkers and cyclists.
The Bright Future of the Pedestrian Bridge: Top engineer Ted Zoli says the era of shared-use structures has arrived.
Can a Beehive-Inspired Overpass Unite a City?: New Britain, Connecticut, is split by a highway overpass—which is also the city's main street. Will a high-design walkway bridge deep divisions?
(Credit: CityLab.com)
More:
The Bright Future of the Pedestrian Bridge: Top engineer Ted Zoli says the era of shared-use structures has arrived.
Can a Beehive-Inspired Overpass Unite a City?: New Britain, Connecticut, is split by a highway overpass—which is also the city's main street. Will a high-design walkway bridge deep divisions?
What is a Democrat?
One thing I'm tired of hearing about is Bernie Sander's "tenuous" connection to the Democratic Party and his "hypocrisy" in running in the Democratic primaries. In his 16 years in the House, Rep. Sanders not only caucused with the Democrats, he co-founded the Progressive Caucus with liberal Democrats and chaired it for eight years. When it came time to move to the Senate, Sen. Charles Schumer, who was chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders, meaning no Democrat running against Sanders could expect to receive financial help from the party. Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic National Committee Chairman and former VT Gov. Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who "votes with the Democrats 98% of the time." Then-Senator Barack Obama also campaigned for Sanders. His caucusing with the Democrats gave them a 51-49 majority in the Senate during the 110th Congress in 2007-08. By registering as a Democrat, by the way, he became only the second member of the party ever to represent Vermont in the Senate (the other being Leahy). As a nominal Independent, he agreed to vote with the Democrats on procedural issues, but was free to vote as he pleased on policy matters (not that Congressional Democrats are very disciplined on policy anyway), and voted with the majority of Democrats almost always. By caucusing with the Democrats, he was allowed to keep his seniority and received the committee seats that would have been available to him as a Democrat; in 2013-14, he was Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Little Libraries: Threat or Menace?
Nanny-state nags and freelance busybodies (of the sort who drove the kid-pleasing petting zoo from the Main Street Farmers' Market in Santa Monica) are now targeting Little Libraries as the latest peril to public order and property values: "Crime, homelessness and crumbling infrastructure are still a problem in almost every part of America, but two cities
have recently cracked down on one of the country's biggest problems: small-community libraries where residents can share books. Officials in Los Angeles and Shreveport, Louisiana, have told the owners of homemade lending libraries that they're in violation of city codes, and asked them to remove or relocate their small book collections."
The rest of the story: The Danger of Being Neighborly Without a Permit: All over America, people have put small "give one, take one" book exchanges in front of their homes. Then they were told to tear them down. (CityLab)
The rest of the story: The Danger of Being Neighborly Without a Permit: All over America, people have put small "give one, take one" book exchanges in front of their homes. Then they were told to tear them down. (CityLab)
Planning tool
Santa Monica has introduced an online interactive tool to evaluate various options for the future of the Civic Auditorium. Anyone interested in the costs and benefits of public investment in amenities such as parks, theaters, restaurants, retail spaces, offices, hotels, parking, etc., can get a better understanding through playing with the options. Plus, it's possible that you will help influence the outcome of the Civic Auditorium development process. The tool will be available through February 14th.
Go to the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium website.
Resource: Left Labor Project
"Left Labor Project works to build a mass movement of working people who share the goals of progressive movements across the country and the world. We believe that the real basis for a democratic future is the working class, in its diversity – all colors, ages, creeds, whatever sexual orientation or legal status, employed and unemployed. Within that shared view, we work through our differences, learn from one another, and look for flexible and effective strategies and tactics to change the city and the world for the better." Visit Left Labor Project.
City to Parkers: "You can't say we didn't warn you."
Santa Monica municipal signage is too often confusing, obscure or absent. Except, of course, when it comes to parking.
 |
| (photo: John Gabree) |
(heh heh)
See? We're not going to miss Michele Bachmann after all. Or Sarah Palin, for that matter.
Joni Ernst more than makes up for both of them.
As Andy Borowitz just said, she brings the "nation the greatest gift of all: the gift of laughter."
Joni Ernst more than makes up for both of them.
As Andy Borowitz just said, she brings the "nation the greatest gift of all: the gift of laughter."
Fake Poll #6,580,222
Democracy for America wants you to choose your top three picks to replace Senator Barbara Boxer from this list:
Being located in VT, DFA can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing CA politics, for not knowing, for example, that Tony Villaraigosa was pretty much a failure as LA mayor or that Kamala Harris runs the AG's office like every day is Be Kind to Corporations Day. But they should know something about goings-on in Washington. John Garamendi? Jane Harman? Ellen Tauscher? Do they think party hacks and corporate shills will lift a finger to advance DFA's agenda to rejuvenate the Democrats as an instrument of change? Dave Jones? Tom Steyer? Adam Freaking Schiff? Are they kidding?Karen Bass
Xavier Becerra
John Chiang
John Garamendi
Jane Harman
Kamala Harris
Kevin Johnson
Dave Jones
Loretta Sanchez
Adam Schiff
Jackie Speier
Hilda Solis
Tom Steyer
Ellen Tauscher
Antonio Villaraigosa
Or is this just a convenient cover for a chance to hit us up for spare change one more time before the serious fundraising starts up later this year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
